Firefox 20 Gets H.264 Support on Windows

[Guest]

The upcoming Firefox 20 for Windows will include a Windows Media Foundation playback backend that will enable the browser to support H.264, AAC, and MP3.

Firefox 20 Gets H.264 Support on Windows : Read more

 

[myromance123]

Hate Flash. Man, when is HTML5 or something else going to beat it out of it's spot? Every browser I use crashes with Flash after a while. Btw, this H.264 support going to come to Linux and Mac OS X?

 

[mayankleoboy1]

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]...and will still crash with Flash.[/citation]

You really use FF and dont use Flashblock ?

 

[sixdegree]

I get the feeling that Mozilla tries to turn the whole browser into an all-in-one media player, and ultimately, an OS.

 

[randomizer]

This is a bit of an about-face for Mozilla.

 

[lockhrt999]

[citation][nom]myromance123[/nom]Hate Flash. Man, when is HTML5 or something else going to beat it out of it's spot? Every browser I use crashes with Flash after a while. Btw, this H.264 support going to come to Linux and Mac OS X?[/citation]
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]...and will still crash with Flash.[/citation]

Mine doesn't crash with flash enabled. You sure you're not using flash v9?
-------------
All they need to put together a few things in FF,
1. Let it support pdf, whole JRE, flash right out of the box.
2. Program it to halt flash activity on non visible tabs (like chrome).
3. Make main GUI to run into separate thread all together.
4. Improve 'work offline' mode.
Specs for a perfect FF.

 

[alidan]

flash can easily be blocked, can html5?

 

[CaedenV]

I thought that HTML5 already had a vehicle for delivering this type of content to browsers? Why bother using something OS dependent when there is already a tool out there that does the same thing over multiple OSs?

 

[nonoitall]

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]I thought that HTML5 already had a vehicle for delivering this type of content to browsers? Why bother using something OS dependent when there is already a tool out there that does the same thing over multiple OSs?[/citation]HTML5 is just a specification, and it only specifies how video is delivered/controlled, not what format it's in. If you're referring to WebM, that's already supported by Firefox. Mozilla, alongside Opera, initially resisted supporting H.264 in HTML5, since it undermines the open nature of web standards, but there are just too many websites that have stuck with the patent-laden H.264 for Mozilla to be idealistic any longer.

 

[jerm1027]

[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]You really use FF and dont use Flashblock ?[/citation]
It still crashes on me. I don't blame FF though, it's definitely Flash. When my browser locks up, it returns to normal as soon as I kill Flash through Process Hacker (task manager).

 

[Pherule]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]flash can easily be blocked, can html5?[/citation]Try the StopTube addon for blocking HTML5 in Youtube. But you raise a good point. I'd also like to be able to block HTML5 in all sites. NoScript needs to add HTML5 to their blocking functionality.

I hate flash, but I hate HTML5 more.

 

[Cryio]

So now it has 3 out of the 4 HTML video codecs. Good for them, I presume. Although I always thought their "about:config" is unnecesary complicated.

 

[srap]

[citation][nom]myromance123[/nom]Btw, this H.264 support going to come to Linux and Mac OS X?[/citation]
They are planning it. Though, there are problems on Linux, because there is no ideal codec backend to use and rely on.

 

[kartu]

[citation][nom]Pherule[/nom]Try the StopTube addon for blocking HTML5 in Youtube. But you raise a good point. I'd also like to be able to block HTML5 in all sites. NoScript needs to add HTML5 to their blocking functionality.I hate flash, but I hate HTML5 more.[/citation]

Exactly why do you hate html5, oh enlightened one?
What do you feel towards XHTML? HTML 4.1? HTML 3?
Share your opinion with us, be so kind...

 

[kartu]

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]I thought that HTML5 already had a vehicle for delivering this type of content to browsers? Why bother using something OS dependent when there is already a tool out there that does the same thing over multiple OSs?[/citation]
To cover major browsers a site needs to have videos in at least 2 video formats, which isn't exactly cheap.
On top of it, some sites must support older browsers.

 

[Cryio]

Honestly, at the moment, with 2012 already aproaching its end, I think support should be dropped for browsers such as IE6, 7, 8 from every one.

What's so hard in supporting Firefox 3.6 and up, IE 9 and up, Opera 11 and Chrome (whatever version)?

I mean come on, who is still using other ancient versions? And I know corporations and schools still use Windows XP and IE8 (god know why IE). A sad sad truth, for many developers.

 

[dozerman]

[citation][nom]sixdegree[/nom]I get the feeling that Mozilla tries to turn the whole browser into an all-in-one media player, and ultimately, an OS.[/citation]

They are.... Google boot to gecko and firefox os.

 

[ikaz]

[citation][nom]Cryio[/nom]Honestly, at the moment, with 2012 already aproaching its end, I think support should be dropped for browsers such as IE6, 7, 8 from every one.What's so hard in supporting Firefox 3.6 and up, IE 9 and up, Opera 11 and Chrome (whatever version)?I mean come on, who is still using other ancient versions? And I know corporations and schools still use Windows XP and IE8 (god know why IE). A sad sad truth, for many developers.[/citation]

That the point of why we do have old broswers and OS' I work for a enterprize company who's not in the business of IT however they of need PC and servers to support there work. I'm talking 300k+ workstations and probably serveral thousand servers. There are also law where certain type of information must be held for 7-10 year so we have application that old where the company who made the application no longer exist but it must be kept running for legal reasons. Basically it all comes money to money the more the VP's and CIO, exec etc. save money the bigger there bonuses are so most things only get done when they must or at the last moment.

 

[dozerman]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]flash can easily be blocked, can html5?[/citation]

On Opera it's called right-click, inspect element, delete node.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]Pherule[/nom]Try the StopTube addon for blocking HTML5 in Youtube. But you raise a good point. I'd also like to be able to block HTML5 in all sites. NoScript needs to add HTML5 to their blocking functionality.I hate flash, but I hate HTML5 more.[/citation]

what i hate is that its not just one simple function that you could block like with flash or javasctipt
it will get abused, and there is a chance we want get rid of it without breaking sites in the future.

 

[spectrewind]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]flash can easily be blocked, can html5?[/citation]

No, or rather yes if you want to block a site. The ML in HTML5 means markup language.
With Flash, you have a posted file and possible external actionscript (ascii) file embedded within the HTML markup language. .SWF files.

There seems to no end to those confusing Flash with HTML. Some of end-user viewable capabilities cross back and forth into being redundant, like embedded video, sound, & scripting.
The platforms nest one (Flash and the .SWF file) within the other, HTML5 tags that comprise the web page.

// Digress here...
Flash sites from several (10+) years ago, like , , and (just some random ones that come to mind) made flash stand out for what Macromedia wanted it to be before Adobe ruined it.
These were not the crappy ads sprayed into website to annoy you.
These were genuine multimedia sites and experiences with catching intros and effects. More art than business and ad revenue generators.

I tried to insert some URLs. Maybe they will work.

 

[spectrewind]

[citation][nom]spectrewind[/nom]No, or rather yes if you want to block a site. The ML in HTML5 means markup language.With Flash, you have a posted file and possible external actionscript (ascii) file embedded within the HTML markup language. .SWF files.There seems to no end to those confusing Flash with HTML. Some of end-user viewable capabilities cross back and forth into being redundant, like embedded video, sound, & scripting.The platforms nest one (Flash and the .SWF file) within the other, HTML5 tags that comprise the web page.// Digress here...Flash sites from several (10+) years ago, like , , and (just some random ones that come to mind) made flash stand out for what Macromedia wanted it to be before Adobe ruined it.These were not the crappy ads sprayed into website to annoy you.These were genuine multimedia sites and experiences with catching intros and effects. More art than business and ad revenue generators.I tried to insert some URLs. Maybe they will work.[/citation]

Didn't work.
Google up 2advanced, xeo freestype, derbauer site intros.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]spectrewind[/nom]No, or rather yes if you want to block a site. The ML in HTML5 means markup language.With Flash, you have a posted file and possible external actionscript (ascii) file embedded within the HTML markup language. .SWF files.There seems to no end to those confusing Flash with HTML. Some of end-user viewable capabilities cross back and forth into being redundant, like embedded video, sound, & scripting.The platforms nest one (Flash and the .SWF file) within the other, HTML5 tags that comprise the web page.// Digress here...Flash sites from several (10+) years ago, like , , and (just some random ones that come to mind) made flash stand out for what Macromedia wanted it to be before Adobe ruined it.These were not the crappy ads sprayed into website to annoy you.These were genuine multimedia sites and experiences with catching intros and effects. More art than business and ad revenue generators.I tried to insert some URLs. Maybe they will work.[/citation]

i remember full site flash pages... those were fun on dialup.

see this is how it went for me.

im on a pII 333
internets fine... till anything flash pops up. have to make it low detail to even manages to make it playable.
but the fun part, i had a 56k line at the time, so anything over 1mb was a chore to deal with.

but than came the cable modem.
but by that time, everything eclipsed the pII by so much that really all it was good for was getting pictures and some video

and than cue my p4 system,
flash isnt painfull yet, but its also more about ads.

now, my current quad core phenom 955, anything flash can be handled easily, but the problem is that nothign uses it any more out side of rare exceptions, and i don't consider video players in flash flash.

i have a blanket block of everything flash, and i ok every website my self.
thats how the internet is for me now.

but with html 5 i could see it being a hell of alot harder to block, and if it is, what is the first way it will be abused?
who will continue useing un optomized html5 code long after they could make a revision?

advertisers.

i know ads are everywhere, but flash ones are so offensive that i made a list of companies that use them and i refuse to support them anymore. granted ad blocker and flash blocker came shortly after the lists inception, so not much got added, but most american car companies, and a few japanese, and i believe bmw, i would need to get the list out to be sure, but i will never buy their cars.

 

[Pherule]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]Exactly why do you hate html5, oh enlightened one?What do you feel towards XHTML? HTML 4.1? HTML 3?Share your opinion with us, be so kind...[/citation]Maybe you should jump off your pedestal and take a seat. In the corner.

1. HTML5 is notoriously difficult to block.
2. Some browsers don't play nicely with HTML5.

Do I really need any more reasons? Nope, I didn't think so. Being unable to automatically block a video in a webpage is a huge no in my book.

"XHTML? HTML 4.1? HTML 3"
We weren't discussing these. I don't give a flying **** about them as long as they don't break webpages.

 

[bv90andy]

[citation][nom]sixdegree[/nom]I get the feeling that Mozilla tries to turn the whole browser into an all-in-one media player, and ultimately, an OS.[/citation]
What would you expect them to do? the competition is doing it... I mean Google already created the "Chrome book" with only Chrome running on it. They already supported h264 but dropped it. And I don't mind having the whole internet just work without extra plug ins. I would love not having to deal with flash, java, silverlight, and so on